APHC010455212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 23895/2025 Between: 1. VESAPOGU DEENA DAYAL, S/O VESAPOGU PAUL, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-1-96/12, 8TH WARD, MALLIKHARJUNA BRINDAVANAM, BAPATLA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BAPATLA TOWN POLICE STATION, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3RD respondent and his police personnel in calling me to the police station and compelling me to sit in the police station, without following the procedure contemplated under law as illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of BNSS and consequently direct the 3RD 2 respondent not to call the petitioner to the police station without following the provisions of BNSS and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOCHIRI RAJA SHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 23895 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…pleased to issue a writ or order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent and his police personnel in calling me to the police station and compelling me to sit in the police station, without following the procedure contemplated under law as illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of BNSS and consequently direct the 3RD respondent not to call the petitioner to the police station without following the provisions of BNSS and pass.…” 2. Heard Sri Kochiri Raja Shekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent- police are calling the petitioner to the police station without there being any crime registered against the petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents on written instructions would submit that one T.Venkateswarlu filed a petition in PGRS against the petitioner. During the course of enquiry, it came to light that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and one T.Venkateshwarlu. He would further submit that the police are not calling the petitioner to the police station and no crime has been registered against the petitioner. 4 5. Considering the submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the police are directed to not to call the petitioner to the police station in absence of any crime against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 09.09.2025. UPS 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.23895 of 2025 Dated.09.09.2025 UPS 491